SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38430

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ravishankar, Judicial Member, Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member
Praveen Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Parkway Holdings Pvt Limited – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/29/CC/488/2015|SC/29/CC/489/2015|SC/29/CC/490/2015



A consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service in real estate projects fails where the developer submits proof of construction progress, provided clearances, and rectification of defects, especially when the complainant fails to establish full payment and ceases to participate in proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - Deficiency of service - Consumer dispute - Construction delays and incomplete amenities - Complainant failed to prove deficiency of service - Opposite party produced evidence of completed amenities, clearances, and rectifications - Complainant continuously absent and failed to produce evidence of full payment - Complaint dismissed. (Paras 8-11)

Facts of the case:
The complainants alleged deficiency in service by the developer regarding an apartment project, citing inordinate delays, incomplete common amenities (lifts, club house, etc.), lack of safety infrastructure, and failure to form a society or transfer maintenance deposits. The developer contended that delays were caused by payment defaults and market conditions, and that most facilities were completed and clearances obtained by 2022.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the Opposite Party provided sufficient documentation, including various government NOCs and photographic evidence of rectified defects and completed amenities. The complainant failed to substantiate the claim of full payment and remained absent during the latter stages of the proceedings.

Issues: Whether there was a deficiency of service by the developer in completing the project, providing amenities, and managing maintenance deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a developer demonstrates active steps to rectify construction issues and provides necessary clearances, and the complainant fails to prove full payment or show a continued interest in the proceedings, a claim for deficiency of service cannot be sustained.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of deficiency of service in construction and project completion. (Para 1 , 2)
2. developer's defense regarding payment delays and project status. (Para 3)
3. evaluation of evidence regarding amenity completion and failure to prove service deficiency. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. final dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. (Para 12)

ORDER

BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and prays to direct the Opposite Party not to disturb the living of the complainants in the apartment complex by any act of his own or the any agency hired by Opposite Party and direct the Opposite Party to work expeditiously on project by infusing more money and man power so as to complete the said project along with all the approvals / clearance, NOCs/ Certificates, documents as required and to direct the Opposite Party to pay total compensation of Rs.35,82,831/- towards lack of committed services, amenities and inconvenience caused by the Opposite Party to the complainants and their family and grant such other relief as prayed in the complaint, interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainants submits that, on 10th March 2006, M/s. IDEB Parkway holdings as developer entered into a joint development agreement with landowner MRG REALTORS LLP for the development of the land by constructing residential apartments and independent residential villas with internal and external services, lifts, amenities, facilities fitting etc. Further submits that, Mr.K.Mohan Kumar S/o N.Kumaraswamy who was the first buyer purchased 2 BHK bearing flat No.C-603, having a super built area of 1370 sq. ft. in 8th floor in VENTO block of the building in the project “TIVOLI” with one basement car parking space on the land measuring 4 acres 15 guntas bearing Khata No120/1 of Seegehalli Grama Panchayath situated in Seegehalli village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bengaluru east taluk and entered into an agreement of sale and construction agreement on 22.10.2009 for a total consideration value of Rs.45,39,628/-.

The complainant further submits that, the complainant and the first buyer entered into assignment agreement on 13.3.2012 with which the first buyer has assigned all the rights under the agreement of sale and construction to the complainants. Further submits that the Opposite Party has executed the “Deed of sale” of the same flat on 28-11- 2013. At the time of entering into the agreements, the Opposite Party has assured delivery of the flat in the said project on or before 30th Nov. 2011 as per the letter dated 1st July 2011. The complainant further submits that the complainants have been tracking the progress of the completion of the above said project has been sold by with some public motive. Due to the date for the completion of the above the said project has been breached long back and after several attempts there has been no any answers from the Opposite Party. After lapse of 46 months from the date of completion of the project, the project is still incomplete. On the contrary the work on the site has been stopped completely by the Opposite Party without any intimation and with no further communication to the complainant. Owing to the adverse situation created in the lives of the complainants due to the inordinate delay, the complainants had no choice but to occupy their flats from Feb. 2014 even by then also. The Opposite Party has not completed the works as per the construction and sale agreements; the work is yet to be completed as follows;

a) EPABX/Intercom installation: For the safety and security of the complainants. There has already been an incident of theft in the building owing to inadequate security infrastructure. The Opposite Party was informed about the same, instead of acting and providing the security and safety infrastructure measurements as per the agreement, the Opposite Party continued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top